Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35298528›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Two attentive strategies reducing subjective distortions in serial duration perception.

Franklenin Sierra, David Poeppel, Alessandro Tavano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Franklenin SierraDepartment of Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5699-1005
David PoeppelDepartment of Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany.
Alessandro TavanoDepartment of Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans tend to perceptually distort (dilate/shrink) the duration of brief stimuli presented in a sequence when discriminating the duration of a second stimulus (Comparison) from the duration of a first stimulus (Standard). This type of distortion, termed "Time order error" (TOE), is an important window into the determinants of subjective perception. We hypothesized that stimulus durations would be optimally processed, suppressing subjective distortions in serial perception, if the events to be compared fell within the boundaries of rhythmic attentive sampling (4-8 Hz, theta band). We used a two-interval forced choice (2IFC) experimental design, and in three separate experiments tested different Standard durations: 120-ms, corresponding to an 8.33 Hz rhythmic attentive window; 160 ms, corresponding to a 6.25 Hz window; and 200 ms, for a 5 Hz window. We found that TOE, as measured by the Constant Error metric, is sizeable for a 120-ms Standard, is reduced for a 160-ms Standard, and statistically disappears for 200-ms Standard events, confirming our hypothesis. For 120- and 160-ms Standard events, to reduce TOEs it was necessary to increase the interval between the Standard and the Comparison event from sub-second (400, 800 ms) to supra-second (1600, 2000 ms) lags, suggesting that the orienting of attention in time waiting for the Comparison event to onset may work as a back-up strategy to optimize its encoding. Our results highlight the flexible use of two different attentive strategies to optimize subjective time perception.

Indexed as

Time PerceptionAttentionAuditory PerceptionHumans

Identifiers

PMID35298528
PMCPMC8929615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.